Abrams v. Harris , 100 F. App'x 932 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-6426
    MAURICE ABRAMS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    RICKY HARRIS, Warden; THE STATE; CHARLES
    CONDON, Attorney General for the State of
    South Carolina,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia.   C. Weston Houck, Senior District
    Judge. (CA-02-260-3-12)
    Submitted:   June 10, 2004                 Decided:   June 18, 2004
    Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Maurice Abrams, Appellant Pro Se.     Donald John Zelenka, Chief
    Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Maurice Abrams seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    accepting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and
    denying relief on his petition filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000).
    The order is appealable only if a circuit justice or judge issues
    a certificate of appealability.       
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1) (2000).           A
    certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial
    showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”                    
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(2)   (2000).    A    prisoner   satisfies      this   standard    by
    demonstrating    that   reasonable     jurists     would     find    that    his
    constitutional    claims   are   debatable   and   that     any     dispositive
    procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or
    wrong.    See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 
    537 U.S. 322
    , 336 (2003);
    Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683 (4th Cir. 2001).          We have independently reviewed the
    record and conclude that Abrams has not made the requisite showing.
    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
    appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-6426

Citation Numbers: 100 F. App'x 932

Judges: Hamilton, Traxler, Williams

Filed Date: 6/18/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023